If Alaska was owned by Russia, would world maps look like this?

I think they would look the same. It's just more practical

I was always taught that Britain was in the centre due to colonial reasons, I don't believe it was to stop the US/Russia from spanning both sides of the map.

I always thought it made sense to have GMT in the middle.

I don't see why people would change world maps merely because Russia took back Alaska. It was the Europeans who first made world maps, and historically they usually put themselves in the middle of the map. Why would they change that because Russia took Alaska? Not only that, it looks more confusing seeing North America on both sides of the map

Edited 4/5/2014 14:34:25

Personally I'd still prefer a map with the border cutting through as little land as possible (So, mostly ocean), which is really only possible in the Pacific between Asia and North America.

I don't believe it was to stop the US/Russia from spanning both sides of the map.
Part of Russia crosses the anti-meridian so most maps have a tiny bit of Russia sticking out of the west end.

Besides if you want to prevent Russia/the US from being on both sides, put them in the middle, right?

Well the first problem is the disproportionate scaling of north to central/south.

I mean, Greenland is about 2 million sq. km while the entire continent of Africa is about 30 million sq. km and your map has it about 1.5x at best instead of 15x.

But to answer your question, it was because the map you use today was created around in the early 1700s. Since North America was still colonial, the world powers existed only in Europe and therefore as any person feeling important would do, put themselves in the centre. Time zones were created after and were adjusted to fit the map. The furthest right time zone on the map is actually +13 or -12 however you want to look at it. Also, technically the US does span on both sides but only in small pacific islands.

So Green and Lord Veigar are right.